Why isn't Istanbul the capital of Turkey?

Why isn't Istanbul the capital of Turkey?

Attached: Istanbul2.jpg (1280x640, 131K)

Why isn't New York the capita of the US?

>Capital of New York State
Albany, not New York City
>Capital of California
Sacramento, not Los Angeles
>Capital of Texas
Austin, not Dallas or Houston
>Capital of Maryland
Annapolis, not Baltimore
>Capital of Illinois
Springfield, not Chicago
>Capital of Kansas
Topeka, not Kansas City
>Kansas City
Is in Missouri, not in Kansas

Because the USA is a federation modeled after the Dutch Republic, whereas Turkey is created out of the former empire.

They didn't want to leave the east feeling disenfranchised.

Because Ataturk hated Istanbul

Probably something to do with having a capital in the middle as opposed to in the corner of the country.

The Dutch influence spreads farther than people think.

because the allies occupied it at the time and therefore ankara was the birthplace of the ataturk movement

Yes, but Istanbul had railroad connections with all Balkan capitals and most important Middle Eastern Cities. I just don't understand why someone would give up Istanbul as capital in exchange for some irrelevant inland city.

Because it doesn't belong to them

True, but they could have changed it after the war. The capital of France was Vichy during world war two, but it changed back to Paris after the occupation.

Huh, wasn't aware of even half of those factoids. Capital cities are funny, many people think Sydney is the capital of Australia, as an another example.

Kansas City is also in Kansas though

The obvious capital of California would be SF, not LA.

Melbourne should be the capital of Australia

Because it does not belong to them.

San Francisco is the reason why Americans hate California.

Irrelevant.

not turkic enough

because of the turkish war of independence, ankara was the headquarter of the resistance movement against france, italy, greece, armenia and the uk. i have asked this question myself a long time ago and researched a little bit about that.

Istanbul was a good capital when the Ottoman Empire existed and they had connections in the Balkans and the Levant (Beirut, Syria, etc.)
But as the capital of Turkey the country it is badly located and indefensible.

How so? It's in Turkey.

When Atatürk founded Turkey, he was waging a war against the remaining Ottoman faction who had their capital in Istanbul.

So he made his capital in Ankara and kept it there in honor of Anatolians of the east who had helped him in his Campaign I guess.

After WW1 and war with Greeks, Ataturk got spooped with capital so isolated and close to enemies borders, so he picked one that would be more inland and easier to defend.
One Turk told me this

too close to Greece

Attached: Greco_Turkish_War_1919-1922.svg.png (2000x1414, 1.75M)

I doubt another Greco-Turkish war is going to happen, so why would the Turks fear Greece?

Having Istanbul as a capital made sense in ottoman empire times , as it was the center of it, and it connected the asian and european portions of the empire.
Nowadays Turkey is mostly located in Anatolia , so a capital in it's center is more practical.

Istanbul is the cultural centre of Turkey nowadays and there is nothing to do or to see in inland Turkey. I have nobody every heard saying he was going to Kayseri or Diyarbakir.

because it's the future capital of Greece silly.

what about ancient greek cities like Izmir?

Its too close to Europe

>cultural centre of Turkey
turkey has culture?
>inb4 rape killing is culture

And that's why i explained that Ankara as a capital makes sense for administrative reasons

They are the original Greeks

700 years of culture as a country and Turks have Greek & Turkic routs themselves

stay mad balk*Noids

Attached: 1453-The-Fall-of-Constantinople.jpg (800x600, 78K)